A trial court’s sua sponte order for a competency evaluation does not extinguish and reset time under Criminal Rule 4(B); so long as the defendant maintains a position reasonably consistent with his speedy-trial request, delays attributable to competency evaluations simply toll the applicable deadline.
Helvie v. State, No. 24A-CR-1441, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 16, 2024).
Indiana Criminal Rule 3.3(C)(1) provides, in part, that a “defendant may plead guilty to all charged offenses without a plea agreement or to at least one of the charged offenses pursuant to a plea agreement negotiated with the state.” Therefore, absent a plea agreement, the Rule’s language precludes a defendant from pleading guilty to anything less than all of the charges.
In re Expungement of R.L., No. 24S-XP-185, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 3, 2024).
The anti-discrimination provision in the expungement act does not displace the statutory requirement when relief must be sought through the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act.
England v. Siebe, No. 24A-CT-497, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 4, 2024).
Trial court properly granted TR 21(B)(1) motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when plaintiff’s claim fell under the Worker’s Compensation Act. Plaintiff was an employee of defendant’s sibling corporation and the Act defines “employer” to expressly include “a parent corporation and its subsidiaries,” which “shall each be considered joint employers” of the injured employee.
AMW Investments, Inc. v. Town of Clarksville, No. 24S-PL-183, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 4, 2024).
Appealing a monetary discovery sanction also puts the underlying discovery order before the appellate court. Late objections to discovery are presumptively waived, but trial courts may exercise their discretion and excuse any waiver.